His reasons for disliking the establishment were that it was expediting the stranglehold of modernity over his favoured traditionalist way of life. He was a libertarian conservative, which is why I found the comment that he'd be against Brexit so puzzling given his distaste for 'big government'. That's flat out lying about the kind of person Aickman was in order to sanitise him.

Quote
Originally Posted by Robert Adam Gilmour

The account from his friend in the documentary that stuck with me was her saying he'd favour the building of something beautiful even if it was at the expense of the poor (something about demolishing their homes?) but this seemed like an example of something she thought he might favour rather than an actual example of something he said.

Maybe I'm remembering wrong.

You're remembering correctly, and it shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody who has read his fiction, especially something like The Unsettled Dust in which the lapsing of a manor into the control of a nationalised trust is shown as a source of profound melancholy.

'I believe in what the Germans term Ehrfurcht: reverence for things one cannot understand.'
― Robert Aickman, An Essay

He might have been, but the comment that set me off was the one about some on here trying recently to paint Aickman as right-wing given that I am not right-wing and have no reason to lie about who he was. I'm just a devoted fan who doesn't see the point in sanitising who Aickman was to make him more marketable. He hated socialism. He hated feminism. He believed in the supernatural. Deal with it.

'I believe in what the Germans term Ehrfurcht: reverence for things one cannot understand.'
― Robert Aickman, An Essay

Another issue is, I think, that there's no static definition of "conservatism". Sand probably subscribes to older, probably very British, one. If you take a look at recent elections around the western world, right leaning candidates are doing their best to present themselves as being "anti-establishment" and that seems to be relatively good tactic for attracting conservative voters.
So, I really can't see how you can sell "anti-establishment" as specifically conservative or liberal position nowadays. Especially in Aickman's case, as it is safe to assume that his traditionalist-monarchist alternative wouldn't be more liberal, to put it lightly...

James, according to Doug's summary, in Chapter 22 of 'Panacea', Aickman welcomed the fact that the many women workers in World War 1 had given the lie to the "bugaboo" that women were the "weaker sex". That doesn't sound like a man who was anti-feminist. I also suggest we should be cautious in assuming the attitudes of his characters are also his own. Dickens was not a miser, Stoker was not a vampire, etc. They may be there for dramatic contrast.

What is the context of that?
Because we all saw comments like that before, in the context of two world wars, in the sense that women have proven themselves strong... by being good at traditionally "female" jobs and functions. (caring mothers, housewives, nurses, cooks...).

Shadenaut, I was endeavouring to compare Aickman's attitudes to those typical of British conservatives during his lifetime, which seems to me to be the correct comparison. The attitudes I estimated would be those of the Churchill, Eden and Douglas-Home administrations. It would not be correct to say that I "subscribe" to them. I am trying to summarise them for purposes of placing Aickman in his time.

Regarding "women workers", I infer that Aickman means that women took up factory jobs eg as munitions workers, since he is talking about the social changes ("progress") brought about by the war. The traditional roles you mention would not have supported his point.